For clarity - when you say 'ultimate answer', do you mean an answer to 'the ultimate question'.

What is this 'ultimate question' of yours?

Logged

"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

I might even provide a giant improbable satellite scaled to perfectly mask the disc of the sun, revealing otherwise hidden secrets of the universe- or do you think that might be giving the game away too much?

Hey Guy, I need your help. Which one of these do you consider perfect and who is causing the other one?

How DARE the moon vary in distance from our wonderful planet earth!!!!

WHAT PART OF "THE BIG BANG IS A THEORY THAT IS ONE OF THE POSSIBILITIES AND WE ACCEPT IT AS CURRENTLY PLAUSIBLE BUT NOT AS THE ULTIMATE TRUTH" DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND?

WHAT PART OF "SCIENCE IS NOT THE REASON I AM AN ATHEIST" DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND?

I thought I was the one that was supposed to be yelling my irrational beliefs at people, and the atheist the calm collected scientific mind. Are you saying you doubt the science showing the universe beginning in a specific creation event? I agree there is a lot of guesswork in cosmology, but not withstanding some grand illusion, this one is pretty well established at this point?

science is certainly the basis of my belief, out of interest; what's the basis of yours?

I yelled because you ignore. You assume too much about us and respond to your assumptions, not our version of what atheism is. You are shooting holes in the side of the barn then drawing a circle around them and proclaiming yourself a great marksman. You need to work with what we give you, not what you're making up about us.

The basis of my belief is the silliness of religious stories. Keep in mind that there have been atheists as long as there have been believers. The folks you were burning usat the stake 400 years ago for not believing didn't have any more science in their heads than the ones that were doing the burning. I was trying to avoid bringing up old wounds, but you're forcing the issue.

Your god demands belief. All other gods demand belief. Other gods, like Zeus, clearly don't exist and don't need to be believed in. In your mind, your god is different. In mine, he isn't.

The day a god shows up and requires no faith, no belief, no old stories, no excuses, then I'll listen. In the meantime, I argue with the suckers.

I might even provide a giant improbable satellite scaled to perfectly mask the disc of the sun, revealing otherwise hidden secrets of the universe- or do you think that might be giving the game away too much?

More comments on this silly idea. I am almost 62 years old, and I have never seen a total eclipse of the sun, of any size. There has never been one where I was born and raised. And though I've moved around a lot (I've lived in seven states and England for awhile) I've still never seen one. If they are of the perfect size to study and reveal some of the marvels of the universe, why do they happen so seldo that many never get a chance to see one? Shouldn't revelations come at a useful rate rather than an uncommon one?

By the way, the theists who have stayed in my hometown haven't seen one there either. So it isn't god playing keepaway with me.

Addendum: The first people to be able to predict solar eclipses, and perhaps therefore study them, were the Chinese, who were certainly not christian. Was that your god playing tricks on you, or what?

I need to elaborate a bit on what I said earlier about atheism. It's true that everyone has a belief system (I prefer the term worldview because belief tends to have religious connotations). But atheism is not a worldview, it is simply a statement that theism does not apply to a person. Similarly, I could call myself an a-leprechaun-ist or an a-SantaClaus-ist. But those only define what I am not; they do not define what I am. That's why you can't use atheism to define what an atheist is.

It's certainly true that atheists have worldviews (beliefs, if you prefer). But you can't talk about a belief that atheists share, such as a belief in spontaneous universe creating mechanisms, because the only commonality between atheists is that they don't believe in gods. It's like talking about theists all sharing a belief in resurrection after death; it doesn't work.

3. It's the product of an invisible unfalsifiable infinite probability machine which produced this watchalong with an infinite number of other possible objects... oh and that machine made itself also (Hawking)

4. it was the product of a machine which just happens by coincidence to make watches, which is as probable an outcome as any random outcome and if it didn't we wouldn't be talking about it (Krauss).

The last two can never be falsified of course, in which sense they must always be 'possible' even if inherently unscientific. Just as they are possible explanations for the watch on my wrist right now, I think the question becomes; regardless of our preferences, are they the most likely answers?

The problem is that positing an intelligent being who did those things suffers from the same problems that you describe here, with the additional problem that it makes additional assumptions about what was necessary for the universe to happen (namely, an intelligent being and everything else that implies). Additional assumptions make something less likely, not more, per Occam's Razor (the explanation which makes the least amount of assumptions is the most likely to be true, barring evidence which disallows it).

That, by the way, is the reason that naturalism is considered the default explanation. Not because it's naturalism, not because scientists believe that it's the default, but because it makes the least amount of assumptions and thus is logically the first one to test. Does that make sense to you?

Logged

Nullus In Verba, aka "Take nobody's word for it!" If you can't show it, then you don't know it.

I might even provide a giant improbable satellite scaled to perfectly mask the disc of the sun, revealing otherwise hidden secrets of the universe- or do you think that might be giving the game away too much?

Total solar eclipses are significantly more common on Jupiter than they are on Earth. Jupiter has five moons capable of creating a total solar eclipse, and, unlike Earth, those five moons create total solar eclipses on the majority of their orbits around Jupiter -- I'm not mathematically skilled enough to do the calculations, but in all likelihood, Jupiter has at least one total solar eclipse every day. Do you suppose this means that Jupiter has intelligent life that is observing those eclipses to learn about the "hidden secrets of the universe"?

I might even provide a giant improbable satellite scaled to perfectly mask the disc of the sun, revealing otherwise hidden secrets of the universe- or do you think that might be giving the game away too much?

Total solar eclipses are significantly more common on Jupiter than they are on Earth. Jupiter has five moons capable of creating a total solar eclipse, and, unlike Earth, those five moons create total solar eclipses on the majority of their orbits around Jupiter -- I'm not mathematically skilled enough to do the calculations, but in all likelihood, Jupiter has at least one total solar eclipse every day. Do you suppose this means that Jupiter has intelligent life that is observing those eclipses to learn about the "hidden secrets of the universe"?

Drats! Just my luck! Born on the wrong planet...

Yea, sure, we got things that Jupiter doesn't, but a breathable atmosphere and dirt are not as important as they are cracked up to be.

I might even provide a giant improbable satellite scaled to perfectly mask the disc of the sun, revealing otherwise hidden secrets of the universe- or do you think that might be giving the game away too much?

Hey Guy, I need your help. Which one of these do you consider perfect and who is causing the other one?

How DARE the moon vary in distance from our wonderful planet earth!!!!

Glad to!

The first one is perfect for masking the sun's disc and revealing the composition of our sun and hence the visible universe. without which we would be a lot further behind in our understanding of creation

obviously hovering in this position permanently would not be a good idea!

consider also the fact that the moon is drifting further from the earth, so this coincidence also just happens to coincide with the exact time humans are able to make use of it.

The second is an illustration of one of the many cycles which vary climate, tides, etc which drives adaptation through change of environment to a certain degree which turns out to be not too much, not too little, but... perfect for humanity's existence and technological advancement. One of many examples of multiple functions of natural phenomena once thought to be arbitrary

This falls under the 'I wouldn't do it that way if I were God, so there is no God' rationale.

No; it falls under the "What the **** was that god thinking? That's just plain barmy!" rationale. I can see no good coming out of a relationship with such an entity.

Quote

Personally, considering that my entire universe self extracts from a fraction of a gram of matter + information, where for the same 'price' I have the choice between an isolated planet in a small dull Truman Show dome...or a vast inspiring cosmos to fill beings with awe and provide endless exploration, I'd go for the latter...

Guy, you've already got a vast, inspiring cosmos to fill you with awe. You don't need a creator god for that, nor do you have to resort to Argumentum ad Snowflakus Specialus and get all butt-hurt if it so happens that we do share this universe with a billion other life-sustaining planets.

I might even provide a giant improbable satellite scaled to perfectly mask the disc of the sun, revealing otherwise hidden secrets of the universe- or do you think that might be giving the game away too much?

Hey Guy, I need your help. Which one of these do you consider perfect and who is causing the other one?

How DARE the moon vary in distance from our wonderful planet earth!!!!

Glad to!

The first one is perfect for masking the sun's disc and revealing the composition of our sun and hence the visible universe. without which we would be a lot further behind in our understanding of creation

obviously hovering in this position permanently would not be a good idea!

consider also the fact that the moon is drifting further from the earth, so this coincidence also just happens to coincide with the exact time humans are able to make use of it.

The second is an illustration of one of the many cycles which vary climate, tides, etc which drives adaptation through change of environment to a certain degree which turns out to be not too much, not too little, but... perfect for humanity's existence and technological advancement. One of many examples of multiple functions of natural phenomena once thought to be arbitrary

just one more staggering coincidence obviously

Okay, let me get this straight. The moon varies in distance from the earth, so that some solar eclipses cover the sun very nicely, and during other solar eclipses a large ring of the sun is left exposed, and that exposure means that it is somehow related to this statement: " illustration of one of the many cycles which vary climate, tides, etc which drives adaptation through change of environment to a certain degree which turns out to be not too much, not too little, but... perfect for humanity's existence and technological advancement."

So when the moon is closer and clovers more of the sun, it there for perfect observation, and when the moon is further away, it is an example of cycles that drive the climate, tides, etc. Rather than just appearing smaller because it is further away.

And cycles are an acceptable excuse for not being perfect for studying the heavens, and you ignored the timing thing because that is part of your cycle, right?

Have you figured out yet that your tolerance of atheism is, for now, based on your own version of what an atheist is instead of what we really are? Are you adjusting to that reality, or maintaining it with all your might?

I might even provide a giant improbable satellite scaled to perfectly mask the disc of the sun, revealing otherwise hidden secrets of the universe- or do you think that might be giving the game away too much?

Total solar eclipses are significantly more common on Jupiter than they are on Earth. Jupiter has five moons capable of creating a total solar eclipse, and, unlike Earth, those five moons create total solar eclipses on the majority of their orbits around Jupiter -- I'm not mathematically skilled enough to do the calculations, but in all likelihood, Jupiter has at least one total solar eclipse every day. Do you suppose this means that Jupiter has intelligent life that is observing those eclipses to learn about the "hidden secrets of the universe"?

Drats! Just my luck! Born on the wrong planet...

Yea, sure, we got things that Jupiter doesn't, but a breathable atmosphere and dirt are not as important as they are cracked up to be.

It's about perfectly masking the Sun's disc and no more to reveal the near surface corona and information about the visible universe we learn from it. not just a total eclipse, I 'm not sure offhand if any Jovian moon produces the same effect (other than having no ground and an opaque atmos of course), but it's also about the remarkable coincidence of an inner rocky planet being possessed of one very large stabilizing satellite while maintaining a near circular orbit. etc

it's not clear than any complex life could thrive on a planet without this - just one of many coincidences that when compounded. offer some explanation as to why we hear deafening silence from across the galaxy

Your pedantics aside, yes, beliefs should pay rent. That is, they should model reality in some way and pay off in terms of making accurate predictions. If they don't, then they are freeloading and should be evicted. They are at best useless, at worst, dangerous.

For example, you may believe that putting fertilizer in your garden causes the Flower Faeries to come out and make the plants blossom. Further more, you may believe the Flower Faeries are invisible and able to leave no tracks. Thus, the Flower Faeries have no impact on your anticipations of how reality will behave. They are just a more or less harmelss, if stupid, belief. It does not pay rent.

However, sometimes people believe other things. They may believe that their faith in an Abrahamic god will be sufficient to cure their child of an infection. This belief would cause them to forego medical treatment and antibiotics. This belief impacts how they expect reality will behave. It is dangerous. It does not pay rent.

Why would you want free-loading beliefs like those occupying space in your mind?

*facepalm* First off, you aren't supposed to discuss moderator actions in public. If you're concerned about why you got that warning, talk to a moderator and I'm sure they'll be willing to tell you.

Second, by basically declaring that you're quitting the site (you might not actually be quitting, but that's sure what it looks like) because you got a single warning, you're giving a lot of credence to the trolling accusation.

But hey, it's up to you. If you want to be remembered only as a troll, then don't let anyone stop you from leaving.

Logged

Nullus In Verba, aka "Take nobody's word for it!" If you can't show it, then you don't know it.

So much for welcoming thoughtful debate! maybe I should have just hurled all the insults back instead.I'll leave you fine folks to agree with each other in peace!

We do welcome thoughtful debate. You don't provide any. You have twisted words, distorted meanings, repeatedly ignored people and posts which are a part of us trying to have a debate with you. You imagine that because you don't yell or use expletives that we won't see that you are being rude and insulting. You make yourself look like a Poe getting off on jerking us around or one of the slimiest, ignorant gits ever to show up here (in my time here).

You claim to be willing to "debate". Show us.1) You will provide proof that atheism is a belief or never call it one again.2) You will respond to those who respond to you.3) You will use dictionary definitions of words - not your version of what they mean. And using rare or archaic meanings is not kosher if a more common word is available.

I 'm not sure offhand if any Jovian moon produces the same effect (other than having no ground and an opaque atmos of course)

Astronomy defines the "surface" of Jupiter as being that point in the atmosphere where its atmospheric pressure is one bar, the same as Earth's, and at this altitude, the atmosphere is not opaque.

As to the effect you'd see with a total eclipse on Jupiter... well, obviously we don't have any photographs from the surface of Jupiter, but we see such eclipses from here on earth all the time, and while the effect is probably not exactly the same, it's probably at least somewhat similar -- to varying degrees, depending on which moon is causing the eclipse, of course.

Moon's shadow on earth during Terrestrial total solar eclipse:

Io's shadow on Jupiter during Jovian total solar eclipse:

Quote

it's not clear than any complex life could thrive on a planet without this

It's not clear whether a moon is pertinent to abiogenesis and/or evolution at all. It certainly wouldn't appear to be.

Logged

[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]: Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn

We've never witnessed any need for gods in any aspect of nature, so why presume we need one for the beginning of our natural universe? Simply because you can't fathom it?

I don't presume but deduce as a best guess.

precisely because, nature isn't an aspect of nature is it? I think presuming that the laws of nature can be fully accounted for by those same laws is a fundamentally paradoxical fallacy, as it would be to presume that the code that operates this website wrote itself.

Yet you have no such qualms when it comes to your god. Why is that? Where did your god come from?

WHAT PART OF "THE BIG BANG IS A THEORY THAT IS ONE OF THE POSSIBILITIES AND WE ACCEPT IT AS CURRENTLY PLAUSIBLE BUT NOT AS THE ULTIMATE TRUTH" DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND?

WHAT PART OF "SCIENCE IS NOT THE REASON I AM AN ATHEIST" DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND?

I thought I was the one that was supposed to be yelling my irrational beliefs at people, and the atheist the calm collected scientific mind. Are you saying you doubt the science showing the universe beginning in a specific creation event? I agree there is a lot of guesswork in cosmology, but not withstanding some grand illusion, this one is pretty well established at this point?

science is certainly the basis of my belief, out of interest; what's the basis of yours?

It appears that Guybrush is gone, but I wanted to throw another stone after his retreating figure. After all, he threw enough of them at us.

There is nothing about atheism that requires a "calm, collected scientific mind". Saying a person is an atheist does not really tell you much about what kind of mind they have. Their atheism may have no bearing on their thoughts on gay marriage, favorite ice cream flavor or opinion of the Kardashians. It just means that a person does not believe in gods.

The unbeliever could be a flaming lunatic who lives in a cave with 300 feral cats and eats only cornflakes. If she does not believe in gods, she is an atheist. I am surprised that Guybrush tossed that calm rational thing out, since he also suggested the evil atheist-Stalin connection earlier.

Atheists are either cold, rational Mr. Spock figures who do not understand love or beauty or poetry, who run our lives by calculating everything and have no sense of family-- or humor. Or we are lawless slavering beasts who hate everybody and defy all human conventions--we are monsters barely holding back our desire to dismember defenseless baby creatures.

We are neither. We are a hard group to categorize, because we really don't have much in common. It is unlikely that there will ever be an atheist political party, for example, because we don't all have the same opinions on most political issues. We are just people who are fed up with dealing with crazy, baseless, supernatural ideas that are supposed to be accepted without question. And we are tired of pretending to believe any of that crazy, baseless, supernatural crap to keep our jobs, marriages, homes or our lives. That is all we are.

If religious people would keep their beliefs and rules to themselves, there would be no reason for atheists to become angry, outspoken or "militant".

Logged

When all of Cinderella's finery changed back at midnight, why didn't the shoes disappear? What's up with that?

science is certainly the basis of my belief, out of interest; what's the basis of yours?

Hilarious and sad.

What you actually mean when you say the word "science" is carefully cherry-picked tidbits that when taken out of context, out of history, out of contemporary science, and distorted through a Goddidit lens manages to cling to a slot on your big wheel of propaganda.

In this discussion thread you've been given many examples of science that aren't compatible with Goddidit. How do you deal with it? You ignore it!

When enough of your lies lie naked and exposed, called for what they are, you run away. The courageous thing to do would be to admit you got a few things wrong. Learning requires an open mind and humility. But no, you simply bleat the same things over again in the vain hope that repetition of your own thoughts will strengthen your wisdom.

I'm sure you'll find a more receptive audience to cosy up with - an audience mentally dulled by the fog of faith. Do you really find that stimulating?

If you have any integrity you'll continue here - expose your ideas to the heat of atheist fire - and thank atheists for cleansing your big spinning wheel of the nuggets of rubbish that harm the reputation of the very God you want to promote.

It's about perfectly masking the Sun's disc and no more to reveal the near surface corona and information about the visible universe we learn from it. not just a total eclipse, I 'm not sure offhand if any Jovian moon produces the same effect (other than having no ground and an opaque atmos of course), but it's also about the remarkable coincidence of an inner rocky planet being possessed of one very large stabilizing satellite while maintaining a near circular orbit. etc

it's not clear than any complex life could thrive on a planet without this - just one of many coincidences that when compounded. offer some explanation as to why we hear deafening silence from across the galaxy

Yes the moon is just perfect to cover the sun some of the time and yes humanity achieved a scientific level of understanding to make use of information provided by this at just the right time. Was it god or could we call it coincidence?

think about all the other things that by coincidence do not perfectly align. Why don't we have a black hole in interstellar space right next door so we can observe it more clearly? Why didn't god place stars closer to us so we could possibly investigate them?

I once caught a Nerf dart shot at me with two fingers just before it hit my nose. Was it coincidence that I guessed when to close my fingers or did I have the skill to do it again? Well then next dart settled that question:)

why didn't God let us see how to use solar power before letting us find oil as a fuel source?

They claim that the moon was perfect for creating humanity. Well I have to hand that one to you. If lunar activity has evolutionary implications (I am sure it does) could one not say that any life form raised in an environment would likely conform to the tools, effects, and conditions available to them. In essence it is likely that humanity owes it's current form in part to the moon. Had the moon not existed another sentient being might be talking about the perfection of the planet with no moons interfering with life on earth.

When I play the lotto with 1 in 77,000,000 odds of winning did something guide me to the right numbers... I mean those are long odds and it is very unlikely that I would win. You can't use odds to indicate a higher being for random circumstance. BTW there were 77,000,000 + losers this week the winner just happened to randomly pick the right ones.

AS a kid I squeezed a carpenter ant, his but exploded and nailed me right in the eye with formic acid. What were the odds of that? Did god guide me to the ant and in turn its acid to my eye?

PS why did we have to wait 140 to 202 generations to learn about the moon's valuable ability to cover the sun? Why wasn't penecillin discovered until the 20th century? wouldnt it have been great if adam and eve figured that one out at just the right time before their first child died of some dissease?

wait long enough and try to catch enough nerf darts you might catch one in between 2 fingers

Let me ask you also, if it turned out that we were in fact alone, that the universe was just large enough to harbor a single intelligent species, would this shake your belief at all, or could you write this off as yet one more staggering coincidence?

We've observed only a tiny tiny tiny portion of the universe. How could anybody say with confidence that we are alone in the universe? Planets have been discovered that appear to be capable of sustaining life.

Of course we lack evidence for the existence of extra terrestial life. But we also lack the evidence for the existence of any deities. Yes, I will accept the possibility of both, but I'd argue the probability of the former is higher due to the scale of the universe and the fact earth-like planets have been discovered. No science has suggested that even the slightest amount of supernatural power exists, let alone the supreme power of a super deity. The only so called 'evidence' is anecdotal, untested/untestable, based on testimony, philosophy, based on interpretation or even magic shows (like faith healings). Nobody who believes in this and nobody who believe there's evidence have actually be able to successfully present it. I've always been open minded about this, at the end of the day, if I am wrong about God, I am pretty fucked, I wouldn't want to be wrong, but I'm not going to believe 'just in case' because it's like playing the lottery (in that I could end up believing in the wrong deity and facing their vengeance), I need something conclusive. I need to know if I'm going to play, then I need to play to win.

To me it would seem bizarre for somebody to have the conviction we're alone in the universe, but to have the faith to believe in a deity we have no evidence for.

« Last Edit: July 04, 2013, 03:29:59 AM by Seppuku »

Logged

“It is difficult to understand the universe if you only study one planet” - Miyamoto MusashiWarning: I occassionally forget to proofread my posts to spot typos or to spot poor editing.

I know you don't like "opinion polls", so the truth is that we have not, at this point in time, observed life anywhere outside our system, in the short period of time that we have been observing. Which is NOT the same thing as saying there is definitely NO life outside our system.

By your logic, if I have searched for, but not found, god, means that god does not exist. I wouldn't have thought you'd have wanted to follow that line of thinking?

It's worth pointing out that the universe, being vastly old, may well have already hosted civilizations on planets whose stars have since turned into red giants and engulfed them - just like our star will engulf us in due course. Again there may be places where life is developing but is not sufficiently advance yet for us to see anything from it.

Then again, anything that SETI picks up is history by the time it is received. Our nearest star is 4 light years away so we are only observing what it was like 4 years ago. We have been looking much, much further back in time but, of course, have not seen what is happening today so we may not be able to know if there are other civilisations out there.

Finally, we are hoping, with SETI, to pick up radio signals that are broadcast from other worlds yet another world might not be broadcasting to us. Sure they may have been like us 50 years ago when lots of radio signals got into space and beyond but there days, with low power FM and Digital stations and the increasing us of satellite broadcasting, very little radio signal gets into space so anyone looking for us from another world would not pick us up now yet I think we are here! So with time a big factor, together with the possibility of radio signals escaping another world it could well be that we might just not have the possibility of knowing if there are other civilisations out there but that is not the same as saying there are none.

Logged

No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)